Announcement on Cultural Eras

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Announcement on Cultural Eras

Postby Reddy » Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:41 pm

Moderation intends to reform Cultural Eras in a manner that will leave them substantially different from what they are now. As such, we are bringing forward the end of the current Cultural Era to the 25th of March (today)
All countries are to have their Cultural Protocols automatically saved and thus survive to the next Cultural Era. This would save everyone the burden of reaffirming their Cultural Protocols when Moderation intends to change that very aspect in the matter of a few weeks. We plan to release more details about this and other planned reforms in the coming weeks. All we can say now is that these particular reforms will touch the length, nature and operation of Cultural Eras.
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Announcement on Cultural Eras

Postby matthewleitch » Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:56 pm

Looking forward to new reforms!
4042-4190: Baltusian Republican Party (Baltusia)
4190- : Republican Party (Cildania)

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” -Milton Friedman
matthewleitch
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:59 pm

Re: Announcement on Cultural Eras

Postby Reddy » Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:19 pm

As announced two weeks ago, Moderation intends to extensively reform Cultural Eras. We now have more details on what the proposed reform and a draft proposal for the proposed change to the Game Rules. We urge the commmunity to express their opinion of the proposed changes, make suggestions and be heard.

The proposed changes
- We propose to change the system from the current one where every country has to affirm its Cultural Protocols at the end of a Cultural Era to one where only those countries in which an overwhelming majority of players wish to attain a Cultural Open status, pass a bill nominating their nation as a candidate for Cultural Open status and requesting that Moderation consider doing so.

- We propose to change the length of a Cultural Era from roughly 60 years (120 days) to 200 years (400 days)

- A limit of a minimum of 12 Culturally Open and a maximum of 15 Cultural Open countries is also proposed. This limit however will only apply as a factor considered by Moderation when considering the cultural status of a nation.



The proposed rule change

The current rule

15. Cultural Eras and affirming Cultural Protocols.

Moderation will set "Cultural Eras" which expire after a determined period of time. The date for the expiration of the current Cultural Era will be listed in the Cultural Protocols Index, which will also include a record of which Cultural Protocols have so far been "affirmed".

15.1 Within a Cultural Era, the Cultural Protocol of a nation must be affirmed by the players of that nation in order to guarantee it carries over into the next Cultural Era. Otherwise, the nation will become a candidate for Culturally Open status. It is not possible for an affirmation to be made within 1 month of the nation's previous affirmation.

15.1.1 The simplest way to affirm a Cultural Protocol is to pass an OOC (out-of-character) "Motion of Cultural Protocol Affirmation" bill. To qualify as an affirmation, the bill must be supported by a 2/3rds majority of all players with seats (not just those with seats who vote) and over 50% of the seats in the legislature. Also, at least one of the players sponsoring the update must have been currently continuously active in the nation (ie. no inactivations) for at least 1 month. A link to the bill should then be posted on the Cultural Protocol Approvals thread.

15.1.2 Alternatively, a nation's Cultural Protocol can be affirmed by the passing of a Cultural Protocol update (see section 16). The update need not make significant changes. Nor is it necessary for it to be accepted by Moderation in order for it to count as an affirmation. However, to count as an affirmation it must meet these conditions:

- It should bear a recognisable resemblance to the existing Cultural Protocol. For example, it would not count as an affirmation if, in a Pakistani-themed nation, players passed a Cultural Protocols update proposing to completely replace the Pakistani theme with an Australian one.

- It should be supported by a 2/3rds majority of all players with seats (not just those with seats who vote) and over 50% of the seats in the legislature.

- At least one of the players sponsoring the update must have been currently continuously active in the nation (ie. no inactivations) for at least 1 month.

- It should be formally submitted to Moderation for approval on the Cultural Protocol Approvals thread.

15.2 At the close of each Cultural Era, Moderation will review the Cultural Protocols which were not affirmed and decide whether it would be in the broader interests of the game to allow them to continue into the next Cultural Era, or whether the nation should be declared Culturally Open.


We propose amending it to:

15. Cultural Eras

There shall be "Cultural Eras" which expire after every 200 IG years (400 days) The date for the expiration of the current Cultural Era will be listed in the Cultural Protocols Index.

15.1 At the expiration of a Cultural Era, the cultural protocols of a culturally protected nation shall be deemed to be affirmed except where two thirds of the country’s players with seats pass a motion nominating the country as a candidate for culturally open status. Upon approval by Moderation, the country shall be declared Culturally Open.

15.2 Countries may be declared Culturally Open so long as there are no more than 15 Culturally open countries already in existence. Culturally open countries may be restored to cultural protection so long as there are no fewer than 12 Culturally open countries in existence.


As stated above, suggestions and comments are most welcome. :)
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Announcement on Cultural Eras

Postby Polites » Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:28 pm

I like the overall idea, but I was wondering if there's any point in having Cultural Eras at all if the end of an era does not result in Cultural Protocols being brought in for scrutiny and potential abolition. Also, if players in a nation attempt to make a nation culturally-open at the beginning of a Cultural Era, then would they have to wait the full more than a RL year before that status is implemented?

I'm also wondering whether the procedure for adopting new Cultural Protocols is the same as before, and if so, is the procedure for declaring a nation Culturally Open the same as for adopting new CPs?
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: Announcement on Cultural Eras

Postby Reddy » Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:30 am

Polites wrote:I like the overall idea, but I was wondering if there's any point in having Cultural Eras at all if the end of an era does not result in Cultural Protocols being brought in for scrutiny and potential abolition.


Those cultural protocols which the nation players vote for to be considered for Open status will be brought up for scrutiny and potential abolition. We would still have the same consultation process as before. The key difference is that no Cultural Protocols will end up being automatically considered simply because the player missed a deadline.

Polites wrote:Also, if players in a nation attempt to make a nation culturally-open at the beginning of a Cultural Era, then would they have to wait the full more than a RL year before that status is implemented?


This would function the same way as it currently does. Countries would only be declared Open at the end of the Era. 200 years is a very long time and if the players wish to change the cultural protocols in a very significant manner, they can do that. Alternatively if players want to play in a Culturally Open country, there will always be at least 12 of those around.

Polites wrote:I'm also wondering whether the procedure for adopting new Cultural Protocols is the same as before, and if so, is the procedure for declaring a nation Culturally Open the same as for adopting new CPs?


The procedure for adopting new Cultural Protocols remains the same. The procedure for nominating a country as a candidate for Culturally Open status is this: two thirds of players with seats pass a motion nominating their country to be considered for Culturally Open status. They would then post a thread which will be created and reserved for such requests.

* * *

In reflection, presenting the proposed rule change the way I did might have been an error as it is sort of putting the cart before the horse. We should have been clearer that it's not a final draft and that we want to first discuss the details and content of the proposed reform given the importance and controversy associated with cultural protocol. All ideas are welcome to the discussion.
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Announcement on Cultural Eras

Postby Aquinas » Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:14 am

At least a few people likely read the proposal and just didn't much understand it. To be fair to them, I didn't much understand it either - and not many people understand Particracy rules better than me (I wrote most of the damn things, so BTW feel free to berate me for everything you don't like about them). Although I'm pleased to say I get the gist of it now, following Reddy's eventual reply to Polites. But if anyone else is still confused, I want to ask you to please speak up and say so, so it can be explained through. Please don't be embarrassed or shy. If you're still confused, others quietly following this thread are still probably confused as well. Also, please don't be embarrassed or shy if you're not entirely sure about the CURRENT Cultural Era system either. You will not be the only one. So please speak up and make us explain it all properly.

I wrestled with myself before posting here, partly because of the awkwardness of me having served in Moderation so recently, and partly because the prospect of yet another big Particracy discussion about Cultural Protocols makes one think "Oh no, not this again...!" However, I am feeling very strongly drawn by a sense of responsibility, both to the game community and also to the two currently-serving Moderators, to come out with what I am now going to say.

Moderation's general level of responsiveness has not been quite the same as it was before I stood down in January. It's been far from catastrophic, and a great many players won't even have noticed a change, although some will, particularly those who have followed the forum closely enough and for long enough. One presumes this is also reflected in terms of dealing with requests and queries sent through the in-game Moderation account, which I know from experience is the place where a lot of interaction between players and Moderators goes on. (Remember many players do not use the forum.)

Saying that was harsh, but some mean-enough bastard had to come along and point this out because, as I will go on to explain later in this post, this is a hard reality that needs to be honestly acknowledged and factored into consideration when reviewing any significant reform of the Cultural Protocol system. First, though, let me emphasise I am not personally critical of the Moderators. I appreciate Reddy and Selcru have limited time, and I also appreciate from experience the multiple challenges involved with trying to recruit new Moderators. I value the sacrifice they both made in stepping forward to become Moderators, and are continuing to make by continuing to serve as Moderators. I was a Moderator myself from June 2015 to January 2017, and much of that time I was either alone or effectively alone, due to the unavailability of the other Moderator. So yeah, I've really been there myself and I do have a grasp of the pressures Moderators face.

Now onto Cultural Protocols...lets be honest, some of us do get passionate and protective about them, don't we? My first thought about introducing an official mechanism for players to petition for the removal of culture rules in their nation is that when that happens, it is very liable to provoke negative "gut" reactions from others. During my period in Moderation, I recall a very small number of incidents where players proposed such motions (although of course there was no official mechanism recognising them). On each occasion...without going into details, some not-so-good things happened, and there were people getting upset.

From a player relations and lets-manage-things-calmly point of view, it is more astute to allow candidates for Culturally Open status to be selected as under the current system, meaning by default, just by nobody pro-actively affirming them, rather than under the proposed system, which creates a situation where a Cultural Protocol cannot become a candidate unless players in the nation pro-actively go out of their way to make it one. With a system like that, you would have a serious risk of disharmony, and you would see unfair pressure being applied to players interested in passing such motions. I can easily foresee them being deluged by negative messages demanding to know why they "don't go and play in another nation instead" or why they are "ruining the game", "trashing the culture", "wiping out the history", "nation-raiding", "destroying other peoples work" and all the rest of it.

Bear in mind, too, that under the proposed system, even if players brave all of that, get their motion passed and submit it to Moderation, they might then need to wait more than a year until the 400-day Cultural Era comes to an end and Moderation starts to consider their request. This could risk Moderation conveying an impression of not being sufficiently responsive.

By moving to a system where Cultural Protocols only become candidates for removal if there is a pro-active effort to make them so and introducing massive 400-day Cultural Eras, the proposal would make it much rarer for Cultural Protocols to be removed, and would inevitably lead to a swelling in the number of Culturally Protected nations in the game.

At the present time, there are 39 Culturally Protected nations and 19 Culturally Open ones. Under the proposed reform, it would be a matter of time before we max out at a point where there are 46 Culturally Protected nations and 12 Culturally Open ones.

Given the proposal to fix the minimum number of Culturally Open nations at 12, that would mean that at that point, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to create new Cultural Protocols. When we have been in that position in the past, there were quite a few players who found that frustrating. If we reached that point again, that level of frustration would probably be magnified by the fact we have had a welcome influx of players to the game, and some of them, understandably, will develop ambitions in terms of wanting to create Cultural Protocols of their own.

There is also the consideration that there are players who prefer Culturally Open nations and would rather their range of nations was not further squeezed. We are dealing here with a 37% reduction in Culturally Open nations, from 19 to 12.

Another concern is whether, at a time when Moderation's time/availability is LESS than before and may be being strained further by the increase in player numbers, it is wise to actually INCREASE the number of Cultural Protocols. The new circumstances might seem to recommend at least considering the merits of a gentle reduction. But increasing the number of Cultural Protocols will increase Moderation's workload in terms of Cultural Protocol enforcement, and will also increase the overall level of expectation players place upon Moderation.

An increase from 39 to 46 is significant but might not sound too dramatic - it represents an increase of 18%. However, I know from long personal experience in Moderation that certain Cultural Protocols, the ones I think of as the "tricky" ones, take up a disproportionate amount of time in terms of the Cultural Protocol enforcement workload. These are the Cultural Protocols which have developed in a way which means there is an increased tendency for players to either not like them or not really understand them or perhaps a mixture of the two. One of the advantages of the Cultural Eras system I introduced was that it created opportunities to bring in some accountability in cases like these. So, to give a theoretical example, if nobody made the effort to get the "tricky" Cultural Protocol affirmed, and the players who founded the Cultural Protocol had long since abandoned the nation, and there was no player seriously committed to the Cultural Protocol who was playing there on anything like a long-term basis, then at the end of the Cultural Era, Moderation might feel confident enough to set the nation to Culturally Open.

My concern is that under the proposal, it would be far more difficult to get this type of Cultural Protocol removed. They will just sit there for 400-day Cultural Era after 400-day Cultural Era. being nodded through each time just because nobody has submitted a motion. Over time, stale, problematic Cultural Protocols like this will accumulate, hogging up valuable playing space and guaranteeing the 18% increase in the number of Cultural Protocols comes in time to represent a much-more-than-18%-increase in terms of Moderation's Cultural Protocol enforcement workload. And trust me from experience, you can bet there will be players who are not invested enough in the Cultural Protocol to actually play there but who are invested enough to loudly demand Moderation enforce it. How confident is the Moderation Team that, going forward, it will be able to deal with the workload and the player expectations that will go along with all of this?

I have some broader concerns about the reduction in Moderation's responsiveness and time capacity. Well, firstly...to be totally fair to the two current Moderators, in terms of the history of Particracy (which began in 2005), they are not doing badly in responsiveness terms. In fact, I'd say they are doing very, very well. There have certainly been periods in the past where Moderation has been far less available than it is today.

The thing is, though...in important ways, the game is not the same now as it was then.

We are now in an era where players can be denied reactivation and early election requests for not being in compliance with the rules (more-often-than-not meaning Cultural Protocols) and where players are routinely inactivated much quicker (after 4 days by default, 3 days by request and Nationmasters can put in 48 hour requests).

I personally spearheaded those changes, and I don't regret them - they were desperately needed, and the old 7 day inactivation period was hopelessly unfit for purpose.

However, when I introduced all of those changes, I did it in the expectation that players would not have to wait long until Moderation responded to their requests (eg. for reactivation) or interacted with them to assist with whatever their issues were. During the whole time I was in Moderation, I don't think anyone ever had to wait more than 12 hours for a response, and it was usually vastly less than that.

At least given the way the rules are set at the moment, I would be more comfortable if Moderation responsiveness was a little more reliable than it has been at times this year.

There are balances that need to be got right.

Let me be clear I'm not criticising the current Moderators, and I'm not encouraging anyone to do anything other than to give them the maximum possible co-operation and support. What I am attempting to do is to urge an open but respectful discussion about the specifics of the service players want Moderation to provide (especially re: the ever time-consuming and controversial Cultural Protocols), and what Moderation can reasonably/realistically deliver on. Both players and Moderators deserve to realistically know where they are with each other.

It may be that there need to be adjustments to the existing frameworks of rules and expectations.

If we do not get this right...I seriously anticipate we will see problems arising later.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Announcement on Cultural Eras

Postby jamescfm » Sat Apr 15, 2017 8:40 am

Apologies if this seems a bit rushed, I had written it out and then my internet connection died and I ended up losing it all :roll:

Firstly, I think the new Cultural Eras would be too long. I have a particular scenario in mind which, from my understanding, could arise if these changes went ahead. Please correct me if I'm wrong, of course. If all the players in a nation voted to abolish their CP early in the Era, you could have a situation where Moderation is compelling players to comply with a CP which they have unanimously voted against- for as long as a year? In my view, it's likely that players would become frustrated and bend the rules where possible. Given that Moderators would likely be sympathetic to them (as would most players), it seems like unnecessary trouble. When there was no clear procedure for removal of CP, this would not be as much of a problem but if there decision was recognised as legitimate, it's hard to argue they should be forced to keep to the CP.

Additionally, I think the upper limit on the number of Open nations is unnecessary. I understand the need to keep a certain number of Open nations and a certain number of Protected nations however I think one has to consider the differing reasons why players are attracted to each. Personally, I chose to play in Baltusia (Open) because there was little in the way of historic RP and established culture and this means I can focus on political campaigns, point scoring etc. In contrast, when I played in New Endralon/Kizenia, Vanuku and Aldegar (all Protected) I selected them due to their specific cultures. Essentially, my point is sort of that its about quality not quantity with Protected nations. Therefore, a minimum number doesn't really address the draw of nations with CP's. Nonetheless, this is just my view so if others disagree, please say!

Overall, though, I do think that reform is needed especially with regard to the affirmation system and I'm glad Moderation has opened the matter up to the community. :)
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Announcement on Cultural Eras

Postby Adithya » Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:12 pm

In my opinion,I feel that the proposed changes are good and worth implementing :)
Adithya
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:56 am

Re: Announcement on Cultural Eras

Postby Axxell » Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:22 pm

Personally, I agree with the first point of the peoposed changes, I agree on the fact that the players should vote to become an open nation. If no one proposes changements I think the cultural era in force should continue (in this case maybe with a longer period).

But like jamescfm, I think that if the majority of players would like to vote to be an open nation earlier, it would be not too fair oblige them to wait the expiration of the era to express themself on the matter (if I understod correctly the proposed new rule).

And maybe also an upper limit could be avoided. If in a sixteenth nation the majority of the players would like transform the nation in an open nation, I think they should be free to do it.

Despite my ideas about a rigorous respect of the CP, of the RP and of the Cultural Era, I think that this should be valid for single players.
But if a great majority of the players in a nation agreed on this, hoping to create a better gameplay among them that enjoy the game in that nation, they should be able to put an end to the cultural era and become an open nation earlier than the deadline.
In this I agree with what said Jamescfm:
I think one has to consider the differing reasons why players are attracted to each.


Maybe you can at least requires to players a certain time of permanence into a nation to propose a changement or proceed with it. To avoid that a single player, for example, which starts to play alone in a nation could change this aspect of the nation but then it become inactive after a week. But I think you already planned to not change this point.
Alleanza Radicale (Radical Alliance) - Istalia (Active)
User avatar
Axxell
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:08 am

Re: Announcement on Cultural Eras

Postby Reddy » Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:04 am

Some very interesting ideas have been raised both here and contributed via private messages at well. A few common themes and ideas are beginning to emerge,which is is beneficial to the process. They should prove very helpful to Moderation in deciding on which way to move forward. Nothing is set in stone yet and we welcome all views and ideas.

You might be wondering why Moderation is not replying every post or challenging certain claims that have been made about the Moderation team. This is a decision on our part not to interfere with the flow of the debate as has happened at times in the past. We want players to not feel intimidated by constant Moderation interference in the debate and for all to be able to express themselves freely.
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests